For the changes from committers, the conflicts are easier to address. They are able to rebase and merge following the merge process. So I am kind of in favor of merging non committer changes first if they are ready, to reduce the back-and-forth on resolving conflicts.
Charan, you also have the permissions. If you reviews got +1 from other committers and addressed the comments, feel free to merge the changes. Is this approach better than for a single person to coordinate the merges? Sijie On Jul 4, 2017 12:38 AM, "Enrico Olivelli" <eolive...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > (just sending this email as we discussed about this topic at the > meeting, without any decision) > > There is a bunch of "approved" pull requests which are falling into > "conflict mode" due to minor changes appeared in recent commits > > https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/127 BOOKKEEPER-1028 and > BOOKKEEPER-1029 from Charan > > https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/189 BOOKKEEPER-1033: Handle > DirsPartitionDuplication from Charan > > https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/81 BOOKKEEPER-753: Bookie > should run garbage collection before startup when all directories > became full from Sijie > > there are some other big changes, like the SSL support which will need > a new rebase > > this is the full list or PRs: > https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pulls > > Do we need a "strategy" in order to minimize the "resolve conflicts" > effort ? > > -- Enrico >
